UKC

North Wales resident Mark Reeves reports on the big BMC election day at the recent AGM.

"it was a toss up between watching paint dry or wood warp!"

But who won - Rab or Doug?

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=47124

I've heard it was rigged ..

In reply to UKC News:

Chuffed Rab won, I think turning up is a rather important part of running for an election!

In reply to bouldery bits: as i said in previous posts, first rule of politics is be present. Unfortunately the 600 kids who were competing in the BMC YCS couldn't have a voice or their parents! as they were competing but Rab won anyway so lets have all BMC members of all ages being able to vote and be involved in the agm.

In reply to Ian Dunn: Interesting to here Mac's argument about Wada and Diamox. Especially when you consider that when he was UIAA President he was (supposedly) active in trying to get mountain sports into the Olympics. But also when you consider that he should have been aware that Wada allows Therapeutic Use Exemptions ie drugs for medicinal use are allowed.

In reply to Ian Dunn:

but we could and some of us did put our proxy votes in so our voices could be heard even if we couldn't be there in person. (said as an over 18 BMC member parent)

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Had a bit of a chat with Mac at the dinner. I get the impression that the dealings he had with the IOC and Wada during his stint as president, plus the way Wada has gone since, has led him to believe that climbing should steer well clear of these bodies.

I couldn't really any relevance to his point about Diamox. OK so a high altitude mountaineer might fail an olympic drug test. But no one is suggesting high altitude mountaineering should be an olympic sport. And why would a indoor comp competitor be taking it? A lot of banned products have important medical uses, EPO in particular, being banned doesn't mean they are bad per se.

As to Wada, yes their random out-of-comp testing is pretty draconian - the Christine Ohuruguru case amongsts demonstrated that, not to mention the recent hounding Lance Armstrong has had. But that's what you sign up for when you say you want to compete at the olympics, and it only affects those elite athletes. Mountain biking made it's debut in the olympics at 2008, but no one jumped out and demanded a blood test as I speed round the Marin trail on Saturday (pretty fast, though I say it myself).

The more pertinent question is where does the money come from for drug-testing? Would the BMC ever face a big bill for that ? Back to you Graeme

In reply to kat rivett:

Me too - that's what the proxy vote is for...

In reply to Chris the Tall: There is currently an international testing pool consisting of something like the top 2 in the World Rankings from each discipline (male and female), so 12 athletes. These are subject to random testing. I think this cost is borne by the IFSC but am not 100% sure. As there are no Brits in the top 2 of any discipline then this is irrelevant

When I was at the BMC climbing was not considered a risk sport so no random testing out of competition or at nationals. This could change.

At World Cups etc held in the UK the BMC has to pay for the winners to be tested. This used to cost £295 a test. At Ratho for the World Youth Champs back in 2004 Ratho paid for all of the testing (12 tests so quite a bit of cash).

If climbing does get into the Games then I would imagine out of competition testing and testing at nationals would occur but the costs involved would more than likely be easily offset by the extra funding that climbing would get from the British Olympic Assoc and UK Sport.

I guess its good that the FA aren't too strict in following WADA otherwise all of the SAFC players would have failed on Saturday, they were clearly full of mogadon and ketamine

Graeme Alderson

In reply to The Climbing Works: I don't know if anyone is interested but there is an overview of erogenoc aids (cheating drugs) on my blog.

http://lifeinthevertical.blogspot.com/2009/01/citius-altius-fortius-brief-o...

The cost of testing is an interesting issue.

In reply to Mark Reeves: Interesting link. Pedant alert - Sharma won a round of the World Cup not the World Championship

In reply to Lurkio: what i was saying was even paid up under 18 members can't vote and as the AGM was on the same day as a round of BMC Youth Climbing Series most parents that are members are at the competition and not at the AGM or dinner. I also used my proxy and I urged many others to do the same.

However if the BMC wants to be inclusive then it should have the AGM on a different day than its biggest event (participation wise) of the year. 600 kids in the BMC YCS how many people at the AGM?

In reply to Ian Dunn:
The clash of dates was raised at the AGM and DT gave an assurance that all efforts will be made to avoid a repeat next year.

The AGM was actually pretty well attended, about 120.

Should under-18s be given the vote ? Wouldn't be suprised if there aren't legal implications (I never studied company law) but nonetheless I think following the standard voting age of 18 is reasonable

In reply to Ian Dunn:

and how many thousands at neither, but out climbing on the crags.

The BMC is no different from any other sporting organisation, the vast majority will always be out taking part in preference to going to a meeting. If the YCS hadn't clashed there wouldn't have been 600 more people at the AGM!

In reply to Ian Dunn:
if the BMC wants to be inclusive then it should have the AGM on a different day than its biggest event .... the BMC YCS


The date of the AGM was set before that of the YCS... perhaps you are lecturing the wrong people?

In reply to bouldery bits: Who's to say the dates werent set after the Piolet D'or dsates were known? Thus Doug would have been unable to attend.....a conspiracy theory perhaps!